Granted, the obsession with job titles that began a few decades back often seems silly. A janitor can call himself a “sanitation technician” or some other impressive-sounding title, but he’s still the guy who swabs out the commodes. But on the other hand, it does call attention to an aspect of his work that is often overlooked: while the job might seem distasteful, it performs an important function (maintaining a sanitary environment). Narcissism aside, it calls attention to the value he contributes.

In the same way, “designer” is a title that has little esteem or relevance – it’s just the guy who picks what color things ought to be. The name-change to “experience architect” identifies the value of the task – that the choice of color (among many other elements of design) is not merely an arbitrary choice based on what “looks good”, but is driven by the goal of improving the user experience.

And ultimately, if the name-game enlightens just a few clients, for just a short amount of time, to the notion that our work is not merely a pastiche of random choices based on personal preferences, I submit that it’s had a positive effect.

]]>By: Linda Francishttp://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2010/11/30/uietips-gap-between-activities/comment-page-1/#comment-154646
Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:04:06 +0000http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/?p=2805#comment-154646Great article Jared. This concept, of what is between is always what I express to people who have never seen a Cirque Du Soleil show. It is what struck me so profoundly about their shows, that differentiates them from so many other shows. To your point, what is the cost of having a performer dressed as a lizard rapelle (head first) down a side wall of a theatre, crawl along the aisles, then settle on the arm of a chair just to watch the show? The value that lizard and their pose contributes to the overall experience is definite.
]]>